[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 102 (Wednesday, May 26, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29983-29984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-11854]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-263]
Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Monticello Nuclear Generating
Plant; Revised Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-22,
issued to Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC), for operation of the
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello), located in Wright
County, Minnesota. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is
issuing this revised environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact.
Revised Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would revise the Monticello operating license
to change the Monticello design bases and the Updated Safety Analysis
Report (USAR). The proposed action would revise the existing analyses
for the following:
Long-term containment response to the design-basis loss-
of-coolant accident (LOCA).
Containment overpressure (the pressure above the initial
containment pressure) required for adequate available net positive
suction head (NPSH) for the low-pressure emergency core cooling system
pumps following a LOCA, reactor vessel isolation, or Appendix R fire.
In addition, NMC intends to use these analyses to justify revising
the service water temperature licensing basis. NMC administratively
limits the service water temperature to 85 [deg]F, instead of its
current licensing basis value of 90 [deg]F, because the results of
analyses of a new scenario (reactor vessel isolation with high-pressure
coolant injection unavailable) showed that the design temperature for
the piping attached to the wetwell would be exceeded. A license
amendment is required since NMC used different methods of evaluation in
the updated containment analyses from those currently described in the
Monticello USAR and previously approved by the NRC. NMC's submittal of
December 6, 2002, demonstrates acceptable results for the long-term
containment LOCA response with a service water temperature of 94
[deg]F. The NPSH analyses were performed using a service water
temperature of 90 [deg]F. The lower service water temperature, 90
[deg]F, would be operationally controlling. That is, exceeding a
service water temperature of 90 [deg]F would exceed the Monticello
licensing basis since the NPSH calculations would no longer be valid.
The proposed action is in accordance with NMC's application of
December 6, 2002, as supplemented September 24, 2003, and March 12,
2004.
The Need for the Proposed Action
NMC needs this license amendment because it has determined, in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(viii), that the updated containment
analyses involve different evaluation methods from those currently
described in Monticello's USAR and previously approved by the NRC.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC staff reviewed NMC's amendment request and will issue a
safety evaluation documenting its review. The NRC staff has reviewed
NMC's calculation of the mass and energy releases that are used to
determine containment pressure response, including the methods and key
underlying input assumptions (e.g., decay heat generation).
NMC used conservative assumptions in its reanalyses which
underestimate the containment pressure and overestimate the suppression
pool water temperature. Some overpressure is necessary to ensure
sufficient available NPSH. The conservative assumptions used in NMC's
calculations and the cautions in Monticello's emergency operating
procedures are intended to ensure that this pressure will be available.
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes, as set forth below, that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed changes to the
Monticello design basis and USAR. The details of the NRC staff's review
of the amendment request will be provided in the related safety
evaluation when it is issued by the NRC.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types or
amounts of effluents that may be released off site, and there is no
significant increase in occupational or public radiation
[[Page 29984]]
exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does
not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resource than
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for
Monticello dated November 1972.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On January 6, 2004, the staff consulted with the Minnesota State
official, Nancy Campbell of the Department of Commerce, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see NMC's
letter of December 6, 2002, as supplemented September 24, 2003, and
March 12, 2004. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by
telephone at 1 (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to
[email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of May 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raghavan,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-11854 Filed 5-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P